Dinesh Bohra V. The Union Of India and The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Jodhpur and The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jodhpur

CW/97/2020

AI Insights

The case involves Dinesh Bohra, the petitioner, who filed a writ petition against the Union of India and other income tax authorities, challenging an assessment order and demand notice related to his income tax returns. The petitioner argued that the assessment was beyond the scope of the limited scrutiny notice initially issued and lacked the necessary permissions from higher authorities, thus claiming it was without jurisdiction. The court, however, found that the petitioner did not raise substantial objections regarding jurisdiction in his responses to the notices and emphasized the availability of an alternative remedy through the appellate process, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 699179 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 04-01-2020
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Genpact India Private Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors., Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore & Anr. vs. Mathew K.C.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: SANDEEP BHANDAWAT; SHANKER SINGH
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Capital Gains; Demand notice; Income from Business; Jurisdiction; Limited scrutiny
• Section: 142(1); 143(2)

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 97/2020 Dinesh Bohra S/o Soman Raj Bohra, Aged About 50 Years, J-05 Shivaji Nagar, Jalore. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Union Of India, Through The Chairman Of Central Board Of Direct Taxes, New Delhi. 2. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Jodhpur 3. The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jodhpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat. Mr. Shanker Singh. For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order 04/01/2020 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the assessment order and demand notice dated 23/12/2019 (Annex.8). A notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act, 1961’) for limited scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection) was issued to the petitioner indicating that the return of income filed by the petitioner has been selected for limited scrutiny for examination of issue relating to deduction/exemption from capital gains. Pursuant thereto a notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued to the petitioner on 20/6/2019 calling upon the petitioner to provide the details in this regard. Whereafter, further information was sought on 31/10/2019 which was responded on behalf of the petitioner on 12/11/2019. (2 of 3) [CW-97/2020] However, on 12/12/2019 another notice under Section 142 (1) of the Act was issued calling upon the petitioner to respond as to why his income should not be treated as income from business, to which a response was given on behalf of the petitioner inter alia claiming that income earned by the assessee cannot be assessed from business and the income so earned can only be assessed as capital gains. Whereafter, the impugned assessment order along with demand notice dated 23/12/2019 (Annex.8) was passed/issued by the Assessing Officer. The writ petition has been filed questioning the validity of the assessment order and the demand notice for lack of jurisdiction in the Assessing Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submitted that as the notice was issued for limited scrutiny, the scope of inquiry could not have been enlarged into a full fledged scrutiny, which action is contrary to the Instructions dated 30/11/2019 (Annex.7) issued by the CBDT. Further submissions have been made that permission of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has also not been obtained and, therefore, the assessment order being without jurisdiction deserves to be set aside. Along with the petition, an order delivered by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow has been annexed as Annex.9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. A bare perusal of the response filed on behalf of the petitioner pursuant to the notice under Section 142(1) dated 12/12/2019 calling upon the petitioner as to why his income (3 of 3) [CW-97/2020] should not be treated as income from business would reveal that no objection worth the name in relation to the jurisdiction was raised. The response was confined only to the question raised and based on that the Assessing Officer by exhaustively dealing with the material available before him and dealing with the limited issues raised in reply, passed the assessment order (Annex.8). The assessment order is open to appeal under Part A of Chapter XX of the Act, 1961. Various submissions sought to be made questioning the jurisdiction of the authority, in the circumstances of the case, can very well be raised before the appellate authority and apparently no case for bypassing the alternative remedy of appeal has been made out. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Genpact India Private Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. : (2019) 311 CTR (SC) 737 reiterating the principles laid down in Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal : (2014) 1 SCC 603 and Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore & Anr. vs. Mathew K.C. upheld the dismissal of writ petition on account of availability of alternative remedy against an assessment order. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition challenging the assessment order and demand notice dated 23/12/2019 on account of availability of alternative remedy of appeal is not entertained and the same is, therefore, dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. (ARUN BHANSALI),J 256-baweja/- "